简明反垄断法法英文指南

简明反垄断法法英文指南
Promoting Competition,
Protecting Consumers:
A Plain English Guide to Antitrust Laws
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
An Antitrust Primer
Illegal Business Practices
Maintaining or Creating a Monopoly
Mergers
Price Discrimination
Frequently Asked Questions
Keeping Markets Competitive
简明反托拉斯法英文指南
目录：
序言
反托拉斯入门
非法商事行为
维持和引发垄断
合并
价格歧视
常见问题
保持市场竞争性
Preface
序言：
The Bureau of Competition of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) share responsibility for enforcing laws that promote competition in the marketplace. Competition benefits consumers by keeping prices low and the quality of goods and services high.
联邦贸易委员会竞争署和司法部反托拉斯局共同负责实施促进市场竞争的法律。

市场竞争则是通过保持商品的低价以及商品和服务的高质量使消费者受益。

The FTC is a consumer protection agency with two mandates under the FTC Act: to guard the marketplace from unfair methods of competition, and to prevent unfair or deceptive acts or practices that harm consumers. These tasks often involve the analysis of complex business practices and economic issues. When the Commission succeeds in doing both its jobs, it protects consumer sovereignty -- the freedom to choose goods and services in an open marketplace at a price and quality that fit the consumer’s needs -- and fosters opportunity for businesses by ensuring a level playing field among competitors. In pursuing its work, the FTC can file cases in both federal court and a special administrative forum.
联邦贸易委员会是在《联邦贸易委员会法》规制下并拥有其两项授权的一个消费者保护机构：
一是引导市场避免不公平的竞争；二是杜绝有损消费者利益的不公平或欺骗性的市场行为。

它的这些任务通常包括了分析复杂的市场交易行为和有关的经济问题。

当委员会成功地完成其任务时，消费者的主权就得到了很好的保护：他们自由地选择商品；以合适的价格和品质在一个公开的市场上接受服务；并通过整平市场竞争者之间的游戏场地来培育商机。

为了实现其职能，联邦贸易委员会拥有在联邦法院和一专门的行政法庭的立案权。

The FTC has prepared this booklet to help you understand the antitrust laws -- how they can benefit consumers, and how they can affect you if you operate a business. The booklet explains how antitrust laws can be violated, answers frequently asked questions about potential violations, describes how you can help keep markets competitive, and tells where to find more information about the antitrust laws.
联邦贸易委员会特别准备了这个小册子以帮助您更好地理解反托拉斯法：如：它怎样使消费者受益；如果您正从事商业活动，它将怎样影响您的经营行为。

同时，这本小册子还将介绍一些违反反托拉斯法的行为；回答一些常见的关于潜在违法性行为的问题；描述你可以如何帮助保持市场的竞争性；并告诉您在哪可能找到更多有关反托拉斯法的信息和资料。

The FTC also has available other publications that explain its numerous consumer protection activities.
当然，联邦贸易委员会还有一些介绍其经常性的消费者权益保护行动的出版物。

"Antitrust laws . . . are the Magna Carta of free enterprise. They are as important to the preservation of economic freedom and our free-enterprise system as the Bill of Rights is to the protection of our fundamental personal freedoms."
--The Supreme Court, United States v. Topco Associates,
Inc. 1972
“《反托拉斯法》-------在自由的企业制度中是位受欢迎者。

其之于维持经济自由和我们自由的企业制度的重要性就像《人权法案》之于保护我们基本的人身自由的重要性那样.”
最高法院United States v. Topco Associates Inc. 1972
An Antitrust Primer
反托拉斯入门
The antitrust laws describe unlawful practices in general terms, leaving it to the courts to decide what specific practices are illegal based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
反托拉斯法只是在总体上描述了一些非法的实践，而让各法院根据每个案件的事实和背景去确定其具体的违法行为。

Section 1 of the Sherman Act outlaws "every contract, combination . . . , or conspiracy, in restraint of trade," but long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act prohibits only those contracts or agreements that restrain trade unreasonably. What kinds of agreements are unreasonable is up to the courts.
《谢尔曼法》第一条宣布“关于限制贸易的任何契约、合并、串谋”均为非法。

但许久以前最高法院认为《谢尔曼法》禁止的只是那些不合理限制贸易的契约或协定。

但具体哪一种协定是不合理的则由法院来确认。

Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful for a company to "monopolize, or attempt to monopolize," trade or commerce. As that law has been interpreted, it is not necessarily illegal for a company to have a monopoly or to try to achieve a monopoly position. The law is violated only if the company tries to maintain or acquire a monopoly position through unreasonable methods. For the courts, a key factor in determining what is unreasonable is whether the practice has a legitimate business justification.
《谢尔曼法》第二条宣布一公司“独占或企图独占”市场交易为非法。

该法同时还作出解释：一公司拥有垄断或企图谋取垄断地位并不是构成非法的必要条件，只是当该公司通过某种不正当的手段试图维持或谋取垄断地位时，它才被认定是非法的。

对于法院来说，确认其手段合理与否的一个关键因素是该公司对其所实施的行为是否有正当的商事抗辩理由。

Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act outlaws "unfair methods of competition" but does not define unfair. The Supreme Court has ruled that violations of the Sherman Act also are violations of Section 5, but Section 5 covers some practices that are beyond the scope of the Sherman Act. It is the FTC’s job to enforce Section 5.
《联邦贸易委员会法》第五条宣布“不公平的竞争手段”为非法，但并未对所谓的“不公平”下确切的定议。

最高法院曾裁定违反《谢尔曼法》的行为同时也是违反本条规定的。

然而，第五条还涵盖了一些超出谢尔曼法规制范围的违法行为。

第五条的实施权是归属于联邦贸易委员会的。

Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers and acquisitions where the effect "may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly." Determining whether a merger will have that effect requires a thorough economic evaluation or market study.
《克莱顿法》第七条禁止“可能有实质性弱化竞争或引有发垄断趋向”的效果的企业合并。

确定一合并案是否有上述效果则需要彻底的经济效益评估和市场调查。

Section 7A of the Clayton Act, called the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, requires the prior notification of large mergers to both the FTC and the Justice Department.
《克莱顿法》第七条A款，亦称Hart-Scott-Rodino法，要求大合并案中当事方在合并时要事先照会联邦贸易委员会和司法部。

Some cases are easier than others. The courts decided many years ago that certain practices, such as price fixing, are so inherently harmful to consumers that a detailed examination isn’t necessary to determine whether they are reasonable. The law presumes that they are violations (antitrust lawyers call these per se violations) and condemns them almost automatically.
某些案件比其它的案子要来得简单一些。

诸如价格限定这类行为，因其对消费者固有的危害性，法院多年前曾确认在认定这些行为是否合理时，并不需要对它们进行详细的审查，而是由法律直接假定它们违法而且几乎是自动地谴责它们。

（反托拉斯律师们称其为实质性违法）。

Other practices demand closer scrutiny based on principles that the courts and antitrust agencies have developed. These cases are examined under a "rule of reason" analysis. A practice is illegal if it restricts competition in some significant way and has no overriding business justification. Practices that meet both characteristics are likely to harm consumers -- by increasing prices, reducing availability of goods or services, lowering quality or service, or significantly stifling innovation.
其它的一些行为则需要根据法院和反托拉局业已发展起来的一些原则对其进行详细的审查。

这些案子是在“理性原则”的分析下接受审查的。

一种行为倘若其以某种明显的方式限制了竞争且没有免责正当的商事抗辩理由，那么它就是非法的。

这些行为常有以下这些特征：通过提价，降低商品或服务的可用性，提供低品质的商品或低质量的服务，以及显著的抑制技术革新等手段来损害消费者的利益。

The antitrust laws are further complicated by the fact that many business practices can have a reasonable business justification even if they limit competition in some way. Consider an
agreement among manufacturers to adopt specifications that require fire-resistant materials for certain products. The set of specifications may be called a standard. The agreement to adopt the standard is restrictive: the manufacturers have limited their own ability to use other materials, and they have limited consumer choice. But the agreement to adopt the standard may benefit consumers in that it provides assurances of safety.
反托拉斯法亦基于一个这样的事实而趋于复杂化。

那就是许多商事行为虽然在某种程度上限制了竞争，但它们拥有正当的商事抗辩理由。

例如，厂商们之间关于采用防火材料制造特种产品的规范的协定。

这一整套的规范可称之为标准。

厂商们采纳的这种标准事实上是限制竞争的：厂商自我限制了其使用其它材料的能力，同时也限制了消费者的选择范围。

然而，这种关于采纳某一标准的协定对消费者可能是有利的-------它提供了具有安全保证的商品。

What if manufacturers did not use a uniform standard for electrical outlets and plugs? The likely result would be incompatibilities between parts produced by different manufacturers. But because of the standard, parts manufactured by different companies become interchangeable; competition for the parts increases, and prices go down.
如果厂商们不采用电源和插座的行业统一标准会有什么情况发生呢?极可能导致不同厂商制造的零部件相互之间不相容。

由于统一标准的存在，不同公司制造的零部件变得可以通用，于是此类零部件市场的竞争加强了，从而使其价格回落。

Illegal Business Practices
非法商事行为
Horizontal agreements among competitors:
Agreements among parties in a competing relationship can raise antitrust suspicions. Competitors may be agreeing to restrict competition among themselves. Antitrust authorities must investigate the effect and purpose of an agreement to determine its legality.
竞争者间的横向协定：相互之间有竞争关系的市场主体间的协定很可能引起反托拉斯当局的怀疑。

竞争们可能协商在他们自己之间进行限制竞争。

反托拉斯当局需要通过调查该协定的影响和目的来确认其合法性。

Agreements on price. Agreements about price or price-related matters such as credit terms potentially are the most serious. That’s because price often is the principal way that firms compete.
A "naked" agreement on price -- where t he agreement is not reasonably related to the firms’ business operations -- is illegal. Hard core -- clear or blatant -- price-fixing is subject to criminal prosecution.
价格协定。

关于价格或诸如信用证条款等有关价格事项的协定是极具潜在危害性的。

这是因为价格通常是商家之间竞争的最主要的手段。

一项与公司的商业运作不适当地联系在一起的纯价格协定是非法的。

Hard core -- clear or blatant -- price-fixing is subject to criminal prosecution. 限价行为不论其是清晰的还是极为显著的，都将面临到刑事指控。

Are similarity of prices, simultaneous price changes or high prices indications of price-fixing? Not always. These conditions can result from price-fixing, but to prove the charge, antitrust authorities would need evidence of an agreement to fix prices. Price similarities -- or the appearance of simultaneous changes in price -- also can result from normal economic conditions. For example, vigorous competition can drive prices down to a common level. A general increase in wholesale gasoline costs due to production shortages can cause gasoline stations to increase retail prices around the same time. As for the appearance of uniformly "high" prices, collusion may not be the only basis for the situation. Prices may increase if consumer demand for a product is particularly high and the supply is limited. Ask any shopper in search of a particularly popular children’s toy.
是否近似价格、同时发生的价格变动或高价格都是限价行为的迹象呢？并非总是如此。

这些情形可以是由限价行为而引发的，但是反托拉斯当局需要有一限价协定作为证据以支持其指控。

近似价格、同时发生的价格变动也可以是由正常的经济环境变动而引发的。

例如，激烈的竞争促使价格下降到一个正常的水平；因产量不足而引起的汽油成本整体性上升会促使各加油站在一个大体相同的时间提高它们的零售价格；至于出现的统一的高价格，串谋也可能不是出现这样情形的唯一原因。

价格上涨可能是由于消费者对某一供应不足的产品需求特别大。

如，要求商家提供一非常受欢迎的儿童玩具。

Agreements to restrict output. An agreement to restrict production or output is illegal because reducing the supply of a product or service inevitably drives up its price.
产量限制协定。

一项关于限制产量的协定是非法的。

因为它削减了产品和服务的供应量，这就不可避免地引发了价格上涨。

Boycotts. A group boycott -- an agreement among competitors not to deal with another person or business -- violates the law if it is used to force another party to pay higher prices.
联合抵制。

一团体的联合抵制（即竞争者之间有关禁止与其它人交易的协定）若是以迫使另一团体支付更高的价格为目的，那么这种行为就是非法的。

Boycotts to prevent a firm from entering a market or to disadvantage a competitor also are illegal. Recent cases involved a group of physicians charged with using a boycott to prevent a managed care organization from establishing a competing health care facility in Virginia and retailers who used a boycott to force manufacturers to limit sales through a competing catalog vendor.
联合抵制一家新的公司进入市场或联合使某一竞争者陷入劣势境地同样也是非法的。

新近的案例有：弗吉尼亚州一内科医生团体联合抵制一组织建立其竞争性的卫生保健设施而遭到起诉；及零售商们通过联合行动强迫制造商限制其经由竞争性零售网的销售。

Are boycotts for other purposes illegal? It depends on their effect on competition and possible justifications. A group of California auto dealers used a boycott to prevent a newspaper from telling consumers how to use wholesale price information when shopping for cars. The FTC proved that the boycott affected price competition and had no reasonable justification.
至于用于其它目的的联合抵制行动是否也是非法的呢？这则取决于它们对于竞争的影响和可能存在的正当抗辩理由。

例如，一加利福尼亚的汽车代理商团体曾采取联合抵制行动阻止新闻媒体告诉消费者在购买汽车时怎样利用批发价信息。

联邦贸易委员会最终认定这种联合抵制行为影响了价格竞争，而且也没有任何正当的抗辩理由。

Market division. Agreements among competitors to divide sales territories or allocate customers -- essentially, agreements not to compete -- are presumed to be illegal. At issue in one recent case was an agreement between cable television companies not to enter each other’s territory.
市场分割。

竞争者之间关于市场领域划分或分享消费者的协定（本质上是也是限制竞争的）同样被认为是非法的。

新近的一个案例是几家有线电视公司签订协定承诺互不进入对方的市场领域。

Agreements to restrict advertising. Restrictions on price advertising can be illegal if they deprive consumers of important information. Restrictions on non-price advertising also may be illegal if the evidence shows the restrictions have anticompetitive effects and lack reasonable business justification. The FTC recently charged a group of auto dealers with restricting comparative and discount advertising to the detriment of consumers.
广告限制协定。

价格广告方面的限制若是剥夺了消费者需要的一些重要信息就是非法的。

对非价格广告的限制亦有可能是非法的，只要有证据表明这种限制有反竞争性的影响同时又没有正当的商事抗辩理由。

联邦贸易委员会不久前曾起诉了一群对比较和折扣广告进行限制，
从而损害了消费者利益的汽车代理商。

Codes of ethics. A professional code of ethics may be unlawful if it unreasonably restricts the ways professionals may compete. Several years ago, for example, the FTC ruled that certain provisions of the American Medical Association’s code of ethics restricted doctors from participating in alternative forms of health care delivery, such as managed health care programs, in violation of the antitrust laws. The case opened the door for greater competition in health care.
道德准则。

职业道德准则若是不适当地限制了其职业可能的竞争方式也是非法的。

多年前，有这样一个案例：联邦贸易委员会裁定美国医药联合会确立的道德准则中的某些条款限制了医生参加一些提供选择性医疗服务的业务，例如卫生保健计划就违法了反托拉斯法。

本案为卫生保健领域更为激烈的竞争打开了大门。

Restraints of other business practices. Other kinds of agreements also can restrict competition. For example:
其它商事限制行为。

其它类型的协定同样可能限制竞争。

例如：
A large group of Detroit-area auto dealers agreed to restrict their showroom hours, including closing on Saturdays. The agreement reduced a service that dealers normally provide -- convenient hours -- and made it difficult for consumers to comparison shop. The FTC challenged the agreement successfully.
一些Detroit-area公司的代理商协定削减他们的营业时间，包括在周六停业。

该协定减少了这些代理商在人们便利的时间内其本应正常提供的服务。

从而加大了消费者货比三家的难度。

联邦贸易委员会成功地阻止了此项协定的生效。

A group of dentists refused to make patients’ X-rays available to insurance companies. The FTC maintained that the agreement restricted a service to patients, as well as information that would be relevant to reimbursements. The Supreme Court upheld the FTC’s ruling.
A group of dentists refused to make patients’ X-rays available to insurance companies. The FTC maintained that the agreement restricted a service to patients, as well as information that would be relevant to reimbursements. 最高法院亦支持了联邦贸易委员会的裁定。

Proving a violation in these kinds of cases depends largely on proving the existence of an agreement. An explicit agreement can be demonstrated through direct evidence -- a document that contains or refers to an agreement, minutes of a meeting that record an agreement among the attendees, or testimony by a person with knowledge of an agreement. But an agreement also can be demonstrated by inference -- a combination of circumstantial evidence, including the fact that competitors had a meeting before they implemented certain practices, records of telephone calls, and signaling behavior -- when one company tells another that it intends to raise prices by a certain amount. This evidence must show that a company’s conduct was more likely the result of an agreement than a unilateral action.
在这些类型的案件中确认一违法行为很大程度上取决于能否证明厂商间协定的存在。

一外在的协定可以通过一些直接的证据予以证明。

如一份包含或涉及协议的文件；数分钟的厂商间达成协定的会议记录；或一知晓协定内容的证人的证词。

但协定也可以用类推的方式予以证明，主要是指一些合并的间接证据，包括竞争者在实施特定市场行为前开会；电话记录以及信号行为。

（即一家公司将其提高商品价格的意图告诉另一家公司）。

这些证据必需表明厂商的行为看起来更像是相互间串谋的结果，而非单方面行动。

Vertical agreements between buyers and sellers
买方和卖方间的纵向协定
Certain kinds of agreements between parties in a buyer-seller relationship, such as a retailer who
buys from a manufacturer, also are illegal. Price-related agreements are presumed to be violations, but antitrust authorities view most non-price agreements with less suspicion because many have valid business justifications.
此类型的协定存在于相互间有买卖关系的各方之间，如一零售商与其供货制造商。

虽然与价格相关的协定常被假定是非法的，但反托拉斯当局认为多数非价格协定无多嫌疑，因为它们之中许多都有正当的商事抗辩理由。

Resale price maintenance agreements. Vertical price-fixing -- an agreement between a supplier and a dealer that fixes the minimum resale price of a product -- is a clear-cut antitrust violation. It also is illegal for a manufacturer and retailer to agree on a minimum resale price.
转售价格维持协定。

此为纵向限价，即一供货商与一销售商之间关于某一商品最低转售价格的协定。

这种协定明显违反了反托拉斯法。

同样，制造商和零售商对最低转售价格达成一致也是非法的。

The antitrust laws, however, give a manufacturer latitude to adopt a policy regarding a desired level of resale prices and to deal only with retailers who independently decide to follow that policy.
A manufacturer also is permitted to stop dealing with a retailer who breaches the manufacturer’s resale price maintenance policy. That is, the manufacturer can adopt the policy on a "take it or leave it" basis.
反托拉斯法充许制造商在一定的价格浮动范围内采用其所意愿的最低转售价格政策，及只与可独立贯彻该政策的零售商交易。

制造商同样也被允许有权终止与违反其转售价格维持政策的零售商的交易。

That is, the manufacturer can adopt the policy on a "take it or leave it" basis. Agreements on maximum resale prices are evaluated under the "rule of reason" standard because in some situations these agreements can benefit consumers by preventing dealers from charging a non-competitive price.
最高转售价格协定则是用“理性原则”标准来评价的。

因为，在某些情形中，此类协定可以防止代理商索取非竞争性价格，从而使消费者受益。

Non-price agreements between a manufacturer and a dealer. Manufacturer-imposed limitations on how or where a dealer may sell a product, e.g., service obligations or territorial limitations, are generally not illegal. These agreements may result in greater sales efforts and better service in the dealer’s assigned area, a nd more competition with other brands. Some non-price restraints may be anticompetitive. For example, an exclusive dealing arrangement may prevent other manufacturers from obtaining enough access to sales outlets to be truly competitive. Or it might be a way for manufacturers to stop competing so hard against each other. Take the case against the two principal manufacturers of pumps for fire trucks. It involved agreements that required their customers, the fire truck manufacturers, to buy pumps only from the manufacturer that was already supplying them. That meant that neither pump manufacturer had to fear competition from the other.
制造商和代理商间的非价格协定。

制造商对代理商怎样及在哪销售其厂品做出了限制，如服务职责或地域限制。

这些行为通常是合法的。

因为这些协定可能产生更大销售业绩、促使各代理商在各自分配的地区提供更好的服务以及与其它品牌进行更多的竞争等正效应。

但也有一些非价格限制协定也可能是反竞争性的。

例如，一项严格控制的交易安排可能会阻止其它制造商取得真正的竞争性市场所应有的充足的销售渠道。

或者，这种协定成为了制造商们停止对任何竞争者都不利的激烈竞争的一种手段。

有案例如下，市场上两家为消防车生产水泵的主要制造商达成了这样一个协定：要求他们的消费者即消防车制造商只能从他们各自现有的供货商那购买水泵。

这意味着两家水泵制造商中的任何一家都不必担心来自另一家的竞争
威胁。

Tie-in sales. The sale of one product on condition that a customer purchase a second product, which the customer may not want or can buy elsewhere at a lower price, is a tie-in. Requirements like these are illegal if they harm competition. A recent example: The FTC charged a pharmaceutical manufacturer with tying the sale of clozapine, an antipsychotic drug, to a blood testing and monitoring service.
搭售。

某一商品的销售以强制要求消费者购买另一种他可能并不需要或在别处可以更低廉的价格购得的商品的行为称为搭售。

诸如此类的要求若是损害了竞争则是非法的。

在一新近的案例中：联邦贸易委员会对一家药品生产商的一种药名为clozapine 用于血液监测的安定药品的销售提出了搭售指控
Maintaining or Creating a Monopoly
维持和引发垄断
While it is not illegal to have a monopoly position in a market, the antitrust laws make it unlawful to maintain or attempt to create a monopoly through tactics that either unreasonably exclude firms from the market or significantly impair their ability to compete. A single firm may commit a violation through its unilateral actions, or a violation may result if a group of firms work together to monopolize a market.
纵然，在市场上拥有垄断地位本身并不违法。

但反托拉斯法却认定通过将其它竞争者排除与市场之外或显著地损害他们的竞争能力等战略性手段维持或谋取垄断地位的行为是非法的。

单个公司可能因其单方面行为而违反反托拉斯法的规定；同样，纵多的企业则可因他们垄断市场合作行为而违法。

A common complaint is that some companies try to monopolize a market through "predatory" or below-cost pricing. This can drive out smaller firms that cannot compete at those prices. But the lower prices a large retailer offers may simply reflect efficiencies from spreading overhead costs over a larger volume of sales. Because the antitrust laws encourage competition that leads to low prices, courts and antitrust authorities challenge predatory activities only when they will lead to higher prices.
一种常见的申诉是一些公司通过掠夺性定价或倾销价企图垄断市场。

这可以挤出那些无力在此价格下进行竞争的小公司。

但是纵多零售商提供的的低价可能仅仅是反映出因大规模销售而分散成本的功效。

由于反托拉斯法是鼓励因竞争而产生低价格的，所以法院和反托拉斯当局只对引起高价的掠夺性定价行为进行规制。

While the FTC has not found predatory pricing violations in recent years, it examines potential violations very carefully and maintains a close watch for other kinds of tactics -- like raising competitors’ costs -- that may disadvantage rivals.
尽管联邦贸易委员会近年来并未发现有关掠夺性定价的违法行为。

但它仍然是非常谨慎地调查潜在的违法行为，并对其它类型的谋取市场垄断地位战略性行为保持高度的警惕。

例如，可能对竞争对手不利的提高竞争者的成本的行为。

Special situations
特殊情形。

The solicitation of price fixing -- also called an "invitation to collude" -- indicates an inclination to engage in illegal behavior, but usually is not unlawful under the Sherman Act. Section 5 of the FTC Act provides more flexibility to challenge this kind of undesirable behavior.
限价引诱，又称为“串谋邀请”，反映了市场竞争者从事某一非法行为的倾向，但根据《谢尔曼法》这通常并不构成非法。

《联邦贸易委员会法》第5条对此类不受欢迎的行为也只是
做出了灵活性的规定。

Mergers
合并
The United States is in the midst of a "merger wave." The number of mergers reported under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act rose from 1,529 in 1991 to a record 3,702 in 1997 -- a 142 percent jump. During this period, the FTC successfully challenged a host of potential mergers, saving consumers millions of dollars that they otherwise would have paid in higher prices. Identifying and challenging anticompetitive mergers is a difficult task that can take thousands of hours of investigative work and often, litigation.
美国目前正处于企业合并的大潮之中。

在Hart-Scott-Rodino法规制之下的合并案记录已从1991年的1529宗上升到1997年3702宗，上升了142个百分点。

在此期间，联邦贸易委员会成功地阻止了大量潜在的合并，为消费者挽回了可能因支付更高的价格而引起的数百万美元的损失。

鉴别和规制反竞争性的合并是一项十分艰巨的工作，它可能要花费大量的调查时间并经历多次的诉讼。

Most mergers actually benefit competition and consumers by allowing firms to operate more efficiently. But some are likely to lessen competition. That, in turn, can lead to higher prices, reduced availability of goods or services, lower quality of products, and less innovation. Indeed, some mergers create a concentrated market, while others enable a single firm to raise prices.
多数合并实际上因其使公司的运营更富有效率而使市场竞争和消费者受益。

但也存在一些可能弱化竞争的合并。

这种合并多导致高价格；商品和服务的效用或厂品的质量的降低；及技术革新迟缓。

实际情况是，一些合并形成了一集中的市场，其它的则只是使个别公司提高价格。

In a concentrated market, there are only a few firms. The danger is that they may find it easier to lessen competition by colluding. For example, they may agree on the prices they will charge consumers. The collusion could be in an explicit agreement, or in a more subtle form -- known as tacit coordination or coordinated interaction. Firms may prefer to cooperate tacitly rather than explicitly because tacit agreements are more difficult to detect, and some explicit agreements may be subject to criminal prosecution.
在一个集中的市场上，只有少数的几家公司。

此类市场的威胁在于这些少数的几家公司可能发现通过串谋来限制竞争是很容易的。

如，他们可能在对消费者索取的价格上达成一致。

这种串谋可以是一个很明显的协定，也可能是以较为隐蔽的方式。

较知名的方式有tacit coordination or coordinated interaction 较之鉴定明显的协定，公司可能更倾向于采用沉默式的合作，因为默示的协定通常很难被发现，况且一些公开的协定还可能会遭受刑事指控。

When a merger enables a single firm to increase prices without coordinating with its competitors, it has created a unilateral effect. A firm might be able to increase prices unilaterally if it has a large enough share of the market, if the merger removes its closest competitor, and if the other firms in the market can’t provide substantial competition.
当一项合并使个别公司在没有与其竞争者协调的情况下提价，这只是会产生单方面的影响。

倘若一家公司拥有足够大的市场份额，倘若其合并排挤了最主要的市场竞争者，倘若市场上其它的公司无法与之进行实质性的竞争，那么该公司就可能有能力单方面地提高价格。

Generally, at least two conditions are necessary for a merger to have a likely anticompetitive effect: The market must be substantially concentrated after the merger; and it must be difficult for new firms to enter the market in the near term and provide effective competition. The reason for the second condition is that firms are less likely to raise prices to anticompetitive levels if it is fairly。